Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unbalanced Fields Takeoffs PDF
Unbalanced Fields Takeoffs PDF
7-18-2016
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal
of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact
commons@erau.edu.
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Runways used for T-category commercial jets are very expensive ($600-
$1,000/ft2). An airport operator can opt for a cheaper option and that is to add
SWY to increase accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) and CWY to increase
takeoff distance available (TODA). General runway layout is illustrated in Figure
1. Note that EMAS cannot be used in takeoff calculations. Adding CWY only will
increase field-length limited takeoff weight (FLLTOW), but at the cost of lower
By definition, the balanced field length (BFL) represents the case for
which ASDA=TODA. On the other hand, the balanced field condition (BFC)
occurs when ASD=TOD (or ASDR=TODR). One may have BFL, but not BFC
due to the effect of runway slope, wind, density altitude (DA), etc. Similarly, the
field lengths may be unbalanced (UBFL), but the BFC may still exist. Inconsistent
definitions and use of BFL and BFC is common in practice. In this work, we will
primarily focus on UBFL and typically in real life that implies TODA > ASDA.
Although the field may be unbalanced, a unique V1 and FLLTOW may exist. A
symbolic depiction of BFL and UBFL is shown in Figure 3. Hence, V1-speed
represents a pitchfork bifurcation point after which two entirely different takeoff
histories exist. There are infinitely many possible combinations of SWYs, CWYs
and TORAs. Sometimes starter extensions (up to 500 ft long) are used to increase
TORA (Swatton, 2008). BRP defines brake release point.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Thus, the main focus of our study is to build a realistic, yet simple enough,
mathematical model of FAR/CS 25 certified airplanes takeoff maneuver
complying with all applicable regulatory, environmental, runway, and aircraft
constraints/limitations. This mathematical model and simulation software was
named Takeoff Performance Tool (TPT). The presented physics-based total-
energy model serves several purposes. It provides deeper insights into takeoff
physics and highlights the relative importance of various regulatory, aircraft,
runway, environmental and atmospheric parameters. Hence, TPT can be used in
analytical and numerical takeoff optimization studies, airport/runway planning
and operations, economic analysis of runways, CWYs, and/or SWYs, etc.
Another goal was to evaluate how unbalanced fields affect TOW and V1.
Literature Review
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
in which all aircraft types can be combined in a single server based database
systems. Author claims that its rule checking process is very dynamic and flexible
and that server database can be extended to create national or international aircraft
and airport information system in the future. Daidzic (2014a) presents analytical
total-energy model and solutions of improved or overspeed-V2 airplane takeoffs.
Such takeoffs are often an important tool to increase TOW (and profit) when
dealing with climb-limited takeoffs (CLTOW). Bays and Halpin (2014) propose
replacements of traditional AFMs with the direct performance calculations from
physics-based models. The results of their study shows that inherent conservatism
in traditional AFMs causes undue penalty in airfield performance. Furthermore,
sometimes even that conservatism is inadequate. Wasiuk et al. (2015) developed
and used the Aircraft Performance Model Implementation (APMI) software to
calculate the global commercial aviation fuel burn and emissions. Daidzic (2016a)
and Daidzic (2016d), introduces and describes certain aspects of the proprietary
Total Runway Safety System (TRSS) which falls under the Aircraft-Runway
Total Energy Monitoring and Management Systems (ARTEMS). TRSS monitors,
manages, and controls longitudinal and lateral trajectories of conventional fixed-
wing airplanes during field operations preventing overruns and veer-offs,
including during RTO’s.
v dv v d ,GS vc ,GS
vd 2 2
sc d
v
a
2a
0 (1)
c
v EAS v EAS
where, vGS vTAS v w v w and vTAS
v dv vd ,EAS vc ,EAS
vd 2 2
sc d
v
a
2 a
0 (2)
c
The difference between CAS and EAS during takeoffs is less than one
knot (for Mach < 0.3 and altitude < 10,000 ft) and thus negligible (Asselin, 1997;
Eshelby, 2000; Hurt, 1965; Padilla, 1996). Dry air properties are calculated
according to ISA model (Daidzic, 2015a, 2015b):
p T
, , , TSL 288.15 K, p SL 101,325 Pa
SL p SL TSL
W vd2 vc2
sc d
2 g
F
i
i (3)
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 10
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
a STP
g
W
g
W
FSTP REV neT1e Da B W L W STP g (4)
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 12
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
The reverse-thrust coefficient REV could take any positive value between,
typically, 0.07-0.1 (idle forward residual thrust) or about negative 0.3 to 0.45 for
maximum AEO reverse-thrust in modern turbofans. The number of engines factor
ne defines AEO and OEI cases. The amount of reverse thrust will of course
depend on the engine make & model. Thrust reversers are allowed only for wet-
runway certification. If the runway slope effective gradient is positive (upward),
then it will assist stopping, if negative (downward) then the angle will be negative
and provide gravity-assist thrust. The average friction braking force is very
complicated and will also depend on the efficiency of the anti-skid system,
braking coefficient of friction (tire/runway contact), average net weight on the
tires (function of spoilers deflection and efficiency), etc. (Daidzic, 2011):
Nose gear typically supports about 10% of the entire aircraft weight and,
in most cases, is not contributing to friction braking (Daidzic and Shrestha, 2008).
Dynamic braking on main gears will cause weight-on-wheels transfer and affect
normal reaction forces. The maximum braking efficiency for a dry level paved
runway with tires and brakes in given condition (regulation dependent) for a
fictitious FAR/CS 25 aircraft:
The antiskid efficiency factor ABS could be distance (FAA, 2011) or time-
averaged ratio of the instantaneous to the peak braking force:
t t
ABS RB v dt
RB ,max v dt
(6)
0 0
1 6 v
n 1
v n 1
v 6
b
cn dv
v 0 n 1 100 n 1
cn n 1
100 n
cn f ptire , wet/dry (7)
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 14
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
The weight of the entire airplane cannot be on tires due to significant lift
production even with spoilers deployed during RTO. The fully-modulated anti-
skid (anti-lock) systems are about 90% efficient and that efficiency must be
accounted for in AS test and certification runs (FAA, 2011). One also has to
consider the entire braking dynamics and the possible braking torque limit
(Durbin and Perkins, 1962; Mair and Birdsall, 1992). FAR 25 requires that brakes
used in testing and certification runs be worn to the remaining 10% of their
replacement limit. More in-depth modelling and simulation of deceleration runs
as they apply to landing scenarios on dry, wet, and contaminated runways is given
in Daidzic and Shrestha (2008). The average friction braking and the total
deceleration force can be now written as RB B W and FSTP STP W .
If the runway is level, then the only additional forces to friction braking
acting on an airplane are aerodynamic drug and thrust reversing. However, since
the reverse thrust credit is not allowed during dry-runway certification, the idle
forward residual thrust just about cancels, relatively small, deceleration caused by
air resistance, and all what is left is friction braking. On wet and slippery
runways, the friction (adhesion) braking can diminish significantly, often leaving
thrust reversing as the major deceleration force (Daidzic and Shrestha, 2008).
Many factors affect friction braking, including tire construction, tire dynamics,
tire pressure, runway micro- and macro-texture, braking torque limit, crosswind,
etc. Estimating friction braking forces is one of the most difficult problems in
landing and RTO dynamics (Daidzic and Shrestha, 2008; Torenbeek, 2013).
Accelerate-Stop distances
tB t2
strans vt dt v t B t1 v1 dt v1 t 2 t1 v1 t 2
(8)
t1 t1
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 16
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
2
v EF v 2 v EF
2
v v v12
1 1 t 2 1 t 3 ASDR ASDAcorr (9)
2 a AEO 2 aOEI 2 a STP
FOEI g
where: v1 v EF v v EF aOEI t1 v EF t1
W
f1 W ,v1
1 C
W v12 B v1 E 0 (10)
2gA W
where,
FAEO FSTP
A 0 B t1 t 2 t 3 0
FAEO FSTP
(11)
g t1
2
C FOEI 0 E ASDAcorr 0
2
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 18
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
2
v EF v 2 v EF
2
W v SH
2
v LOF
2
LOF SH TODR TODAcorr (13)
2 a AEO 2 aOEI TOEI Da 2 g
1 W
TO ,OEI TOEI Da avg ,TO
K
f 2 W ,v1
1
W v12 H 1 v1 1 P1 W 2 R1 W U 1 0 (14)
2 g G1 W
where:
2W 2W
v LOF LOF v SH SH
SL S ref C L ,TO max SL S ref C L ,TO max
The product of the constant geometric wing-reference surface Sref and the
maximum coefficient-of-lift in takeoff configuration CL,TOmax, defines Seff or the
effective lifting surface; the larger the effective lifting surface the lower the
stalling speed. There is a direct relationship between the steady-state coefficient-
of-lift at LOF and the maximum (stalling) coefficient-of-lift in the takeoff
configuration, C L ,TO ,LOF C L ,TO max LOF
2
. There is a bit of uncertainty with the
factors for VLOF and VSH speeds and due to various stability and control issues
during rotation and transition to flight, the manufacturer can use different
operational values of these speeds. However, all these aforementioned speeds
have to meet various restriction as defined by FAR/CS 25.107.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 20
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
A minimum takeoff safety speed V2MIN cannot be less than 1.2 VS1 or 1.13
VSR1. We used this criteria to define OEI SH-speed which is identical to the
takeoff safety speed, i.e., VSH =V2 speed. Liftoff speed occurs between the rotation
VR and the OEI SH-speed VSH, and must be always faster than flight-test
determined VMU (minimum-unstick airspeed). Deceleration forces play no role in
AG maneuver. A special case exists if the short engine-failure recognition delay is
neglected. In that case the takeoff decision/action speed can be expressed
analytically as (see also Figure 9):
P U 1
v1,AG 2 g G1 R1 1 1 W 1 W (16)
R1 R1 W
As CWY length increases, OEI TORR may limit FLLTOW. The energy
balance for the TORR required under the FAR 25.113(c)(1)(i) for dry runway (SH
of 35 ft), yields:
2
v EF 2
v LOF v EF
2
1 W v SH
2
v LOF
2
SH TORR (17)
2 a AEO 2 aOEI 2 TOEI Da 2 g
K
f 3 W ,v1
1
W v12 H 2 v1 2 P2 W 2 R2 W U 2 0 (18)
2 g G2 W
where,
Takeoff can be also limited by the net (factored) AEO scenario. In that
case a safety factor of 15% is currently added to demonstrated gross distance. The
15% add-on comes from the study of operating variations (Eshelby, 2000)
resulting in 3% standard deviation (SD) and five SDs are taken to account for
slightly less than one-in-a-million (10-6) probability of not meeting the operational
requirements. Thus, for the AEO TODR case, we have:
v LOF
2
W v32 v LOF
2
1.15 SH TODRAEO TODAcorr (20)
2 a AEO TAEO Da 2 g
a1 W 2 b1 W c1 0 (21)
where,
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 22
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
1 2 1
LOF
2
3 LOF
FAEO TAEO Da SH TODAcorr
a1 b1 c1
g SL S ref C L ,TO max TAEO Da 1.15
The net AEO takeoff weight limit is the smaller positive real value.
Naturally, no complex-conjugate or negative real solutions are allowed. The
airspeed during AEO takeoff and at SH (35 ft dry or 15 ft wet) is not defined. In
operating practice V3 is typically V2 plus 10-20 knots. We could introduce another
energy equation to estimate V3 more accurately, but that would add to complexity
and we simply assume that speed at SH during AEO takeoff is V3=1.3 VS1. Twin-
engine jets are normally field-length limited by OEI (gross performance) takeoffs.
Only very lightly loaded T-category twin-jets may become net-AEO field limited.
Conversely, four-engine jets are often field-limited by the 115% AEO takeoff
(net) factorization. Tri-jets are often restricted by VR limit (Swatton, 2008).
v2 1 W v32 v LOF
2
1.15 LOF SH TORRAEO TORAcorr (22)
2 a AEO 2 TAEO Da 2 g
a2 W 2 b2 W c2 0 (23)
where,
1 3 LOF 2 1
2
FAEO 2 TAEO Da
LOF
SH TORAcorr
a2 b2 c2
g SL S ref C L ,TO max 2 TAEO Da 1.15
In the case that actual TOW is less than FLLTOW three options are possible
(Daidzic, 2012b, 2013b, 2014a):
W 2 C
v STP B v STP E 0 (24)
2gA W
The minimum takeoff speeds VGO from which the airplane can still
perform OEI AG and meet TODA restriction are evaluated from:
W 2 K
vGO H 1 vGO 1 P1 W 2 R1 W U 1 0 (25)
2 g G1 W
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 24
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
TOEI DW ,C D
FLLTOW CLTOW (26)
0.024
Air density plays crucial role in takeoffs. Two important adverse effects
exists. First, the TAS increases for the same EAS as air density is decreased
(increased elevation, temperature, humidity, and/or lower barometric air pressure
or all effects combined). Second, jet engines are air-breathing propulsion devices
and in the first approximation it can be assumed that thrust decreases linearly with
air density. The takeoff distance assuming constant acceleration up to V2 is:
1.2
2
W S ref W2
sG (27)
SL g 2 C L ,TO max F W SL,ISA 2 S eff FSL,ISA
W S TO
S TODR 37.5 TOP25 TOP25 (28)
2
C L ,TO max T W TO ,SL
Sensitivity due to small changes in weight, runway length, and air density
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 26
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
about the small linear perturbations around equilibrium points, Taylor’s first-order
expansion of multivariable functions (e.g., Appendix C) will be used. The
sensitivity (or uncertainty) of liftoff-speed on aircraft weight and air density (air
pressure and temperature) can be expressed as:
v LOF 1 W 1 1 W 1 1
(29)
v LOF 2 W 2 2 W 2 2
The effect of wind was not included in the mathematical model. The effect
of crosswind (XW) on tire dynamics is neglected as well. Only the wind
component co-linear with the runway is used. Wind not only changes GS of the
aircraft, but also the time exposure to it. Headwind (HW) is by definition positive
(HW > 0), while tailwind (TW) is negative (TW < 0). Distance covered in ground
roll under steady wind along the runway using aircraft’s TAS is (Durbin and
Perkins, 1962; Mair and Birdsall, 1992; Saarlas, 2007; Vinh, 1993):
dv v LOF v w
vLOF vLOF 2
vdv
sGw
vw
a
vw
vw
a
2a
(30)
The speed- and time-averaged accelerations in above integrals are not the
same as for no-wind situation (Mair and Birdsall, 1992). The average acceleration
is taken from the point where TAS is equal to steady wind component (HW or
TW) to the liftoff TAS. Since acceleration is not constant during takeoff, the
average acceleration will be slightly different in the no-wind, HW, or TW cases.
However, for small wind factors we can neglect those differences. The effect of
wind on ground roll distance with airplane’s CAS/EAS liftoff airspeed in the first
approximation for small wind factors is proportional to:
v LOF
2 2
v LOF v
2
v
sGw v w 1 w 2 w sG 0 Fw (31)
v LOF v LOF
v
2
v
HW : sGw sG 0 1 w w
4 v LOF v LOF
(32)
v
2
v
TW : sGw sG 0 1 2.25 w 3 w
v LOF v LOF
For example, a wind ratio of 0.1 (e.g., 16 knot along runway wind at VLOF
=160 knots) for SL density will result in a ground-roll correction multipliers of
0.9025 and 1.3225 for HW and TW respectively. For HW, the ground roll is
reduced, while for TW it is significantly increased. A 7,000 ft no-wind distance to
liftoff will increase by about 32.3% due to 16 knot TW. The factored distance is
now amazing 9,258 ft. Such wind factoring introduces additional inherent safety
margins built into performance charts and it is illegal for an operator to take
advantage of it (Swatton, 2008). During the airborne takeoff portion the airplane
will accelerate to V2, but the wind will slightly change due to Earth’s boundary
layer. More details on takeoff airborne phase wind accounting and wind gradient
can be found in Durbin and Perkins (1962). More on the many curious effects of
wind affecting aircraft in flight can be found in Daidzic (2016a). Mair and
Birdsall (1992) and Vinh (1993) give particularly good in-depth discussion of
wind effects on airplane’s field performance. Also, McCormick (1995) gives good
discussion and solution methods for inclusion of wind effects.
Most commercial use runways have effective gradient (grade, slope) less
than ±2%. Regulations, such as FAR 25.105(d)(2), require considerations of
effective runway gradients for field performance calculations. The effective
runway gradient is also defined in AC 150/5325-4B (FAA, 2005). We use linear
perturbations to extract the runway slope correction on calculated TODR, ASDR,
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 28
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
and TORR. The runway slope affects the longitudinal forces and accelerations. It
can be treated in terms of the gravity-assisted thrust (downslope takeoff, 0 )
or gravity-generated drag (upslope takeoff, 0 ). During RTO’s those
functions are reversed and upslope runway is very helpful. Thus, we can write for
the runway gradient effect alone:
s a a
a g (33)
s0 a0 0
s0 s 2 s0 g
F 1 (34)
s0 v1
2
The total-energy based mathematical model and TPT enable quite accurate
estimation of FLLTOW and all takeoff airspeeds for balanced (BFC) and
The basic TORA is 8,000 ft with 300-ft SWY and 800-ft CWY. The main-
and nose-gear runway alignment (line-up) corrections are 100 (XA) and 200 (XB) ft
respectively. This is the case of no-wind, dry, hard-surfaced runway with required
SH of 35 ft at environmental relative density of 0.9 (about 3,600 ft ISA). The N-R
solver converged to the correct value of V1 of 135.8 knot and FLLTOW of
341,437 lbf. The AEO TODA net (115% factored) weight limit is 392,790 lbf and
the AEO TORA limit is 396,451 lbf, while the structural takeoff limit (MSTOW)
is 410,000 lbf. Additionally, it was computed that V1/VR is 0.97 with VR =140 and
V2=153 knots. A slightly longer CWY would result in TORA be more restrictive
than TODA. In the case when TOW < FLLTOW for given ASDA and TODA and
no reduced-thrust takeoff, a range of V1 speeds exists between VGO and VSTP as
summarized in Table 1. The abnormal case, vSTP vGO implies the airplane is
performance-wise overloaded and the takeoff is unsafe (see also Figure 9). For
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 30
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
example, when TOW is 300,000 lb, the VGO speed is 113 knots and VSTP speed is
144 knots, while rotation speed is about 132 knots, thus possibly restricting V1.
Figure 10. FLLTOW and corresponding V1 limited by OEI TODA dry (35 ft)
condition with 8,000 ft TORA, 300 ft SWY, 800 ft CWY (UBFL).
Table 1
For the BFL case, with no SWY and CWY, as illustrated in Figure 11, we
obtain V1 of 135.2 knot and OEI TODA-limited FLLTOW of 330,086 lbf at the
same no-wind, DA, and dry, hard-surfaced, level runway. The AEO TODA and
TORA limits become 374,297 lbf and 396,451 lbf (stays the same) respectively.
Figure 11. FLLTOW and corresponding V1 limited by OEI TODA dry (35 ft)
condition with 8,000 ft TORA (BFL), no SWY and CWY.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 32
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
cases (UBFL and BFL), the RTOW is limited by unfactored (gross) OEI limits.
Clearly, ASDA and TODA differ, but the obtained solution is optimal resulting in
maximum takeoff weight (mass) at given V1. No consideration and limitations due
to VMCG, VMBE, and VTIRE is given at this point. They would essentially represent
left and right V1 boundaries. The minimum V1/VR ratio may be limited by VMCG
and the maximum V1/VR ratio may be limited by VMBE. Increased TOW will result
in ASDR curve moving up and to the left, while TODR curve would move up and
to the right.
Figure 12. The OEI TODR, TORR, and ASDR distances for 8,000 ft TORA
1,000 ft CWY and 500 ft SWY at 3,600 ft ISA.
Figure 13. OEI TODR and TORR versus ASDR for different TOWs and V1/VR
ratios at SL ISA conditions (σ=1.0).
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 34
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Figure 14. OEI TODR and TORR versus ASDR for different TOWs and V1/VR
ratios at about 3,600 ft ISA conditions (σ=0.9).
Taking off from about 7,400 ft ISA airfield, causes significant decrease in
TOW for the same runway sizes as illustrated in Figure 15. TODR starts
increasing even steeper than ASDR. All TOWs result in unbalanced conditions
and are limited by rotation speeds V1=VR. The slopes of constant speed-ratios
become very steep at low V1/VR, requiring excessive TORAs and TODAs.
Figure 15. TODR and TORR versus ASDR for different TOWs and V1/VR ratios
at about 7,400 ft ISA conditions (σ=0.8).
Perhaps the most important result of this study is depicted in Figure 16. It
illustrates the increase of FLLTOW by adding runway extensions in various
proportions. The FLLTOW for the basic dry and level ASDA=TODA=BFL is
330,086 lbf with V1 equal to 135.2 knots. The V1/VR ratio is 0.98 and V2 is 150.4
knots (shown in Figure 11). Adding up to 2,000 ft of CWY and/or SWY to the
basic 8,000-ft TORA (up to 25% increase) is simulated. Adding SWY alone will
increase FLLTOW, but only if V1 is higher. On the other hand, adding CWY
increases FLLTOW at the expense of lower V1. Thus, v1 SWY W 0 , and
v1 CWY W 0 . See also Figure 9 for illustration and graphical explanation.
Adding both SWY and CWY at the same rate (BFL) will increase FLLTOW
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 36
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Figure 16. The effect of up to 2,000 ft runway extensions (CWY and/or SWY) on
V1 change and FLLTOW increase at about 3,600 ft ISA.
a cost of 3 knot faster V1. The V1/VR is 0.96 and V2 is 157 knots. Using wet
runway V1wet of 126 knots and lowering SH to 15 ft resulted in maximum liftoff
weight of 340,800 lbf, VR/V2 of 140/153 knots with the same 2,000/1,000 ft
CWY/SWY ratio. At the CWY/SWY ratio of 4:1, the V1 speed essentially stays
unchanged, while FLLTOW increased by almost 25,000 lbf (7.5%). The non-
dimensional changes in v1* and TOW * for specified SWY and CWY lengths are
presented in Figure 17.
Figure 17. The effect of up to 2,000 ft runway extensions (CWY and/or SWY) on
dimensionless V1 and TOW changes at about 3,600 ft ISA.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 38
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
increase in V1) increased TOW at virtually the same rate as CWY/SWY ratio of
three (up to 2,000 ft CWY and up to 667 ft of SWY) runway extension.
Figure 18. The effect of up to 2,000 ft runway extensions (CWY and/or SWY) on
dimensionless V1 and TOW changes at about 3,600 ft ISA.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 40
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Conclusions
Author Bio
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 42
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
References
Anderson, J. D. Jr. (1999). Aircraft performance and design. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Ayres, F., Jr., & Mendelson,E. (2009). Calculus (5th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Bays, L. V. & Halpin, K. E. (2014). Improved safety and capability via direct
computation of takeoff and landing performance data, 14th AIAA
Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA
Aviation, 16-20 June 2014, Atlanta, GA. DOI: 10.2514/6.2014-2154
Carnahan, B., Luther, H. A., & Wilkes, J. O. (1969). Applied numerical methods.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Chapra, S. C., & Canale, R. P. (2006). Numerical methods for engineers (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Chiles, P. (2007, July). Planning the departure: Takeoff performance myths and
methods. AeroSafety World, 2(7), 26-32.
Civil Aviation Authority. (UK CAA) (2006). CAP 698 CAA JAR-FCL
examinations: Aeroplane performance manual (3rd ed.). West Sussex,
UK: Author.
Daidzic, N. E. (2013b, November). Aircraft tests arrive at numbers pilots need for
safe operations, Professional Pilot, 47(11), 100-104.
Daidzic, N. E. (2016a). General solution of the wind triangle problem and the
critical tailwind angle, The International Journal of Aviation Sciences
(IJAS), 1(1), 57-93.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 44
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Davis, D. P. (1971). Handling the big jets (3rd ed.). London, UK: Civil Aviation
Authority.
Durbin, E. J., & Perkins, C. D. (eds.) (1962). Flight test manual (AGARD
Volume 1, Chapter 8, 2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Holt, M. J., & Poynor, P. J. (2006). Air carrier operations. Newcastle, WA:
Aviation Supplies & Academics.
Loftin, Jr. L. K. (1980). Subsonic aircraft: Evolution and the matching of size to
performance (NASA RP 1060). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
Lowery, J. (2001). Professional pilot (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa University Press.
Nuic, A., Poinsot, C., Iagaru, M.-G., Gallo, E., Navarro, F. A., & Querejeta, C.
(2005). Advanced aircraft performance modeling for ATM: Enhancements
to the BADA model, 24th Digital Avionics System Conference, October
30-November 3, Washington D.C. DOI: 10.1109/DASC.2005.1563320
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 46
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Saarlas, M. (2007). Aircraft performance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, M. A. (1953, January 16). Stopways and clearways. Flight and Aircraft
Engineer, LXIII(2295), 67-68.
Spiegel, M. R., & Liu, J. (1999). Mathematical handbook of formulas and tables
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Swatton, P. J. (2008). Aircraft performance: Theory and practice for pilots (2nd
ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Webb, J., & Walker, B. (2004). Fly the wing (3rd ed.). Ames, IA: Blackwell.
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 48
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Appendix A
If the accelerated takeoff roll is restricted to 1-D straight-line motion only, the
distance and the time covered to accelerate between two groundspeeds is (Vinh,
1993):
v2 v2
v dv v22 v12 dv v2 v1
s
v1
av
2a
t av
v1
a
(A1)
av A B v C v 2 (A2)
A
g
W
ne TSP TSL m r v v W
g c
B ne TSP TSL m 1 (A3)
W
g
ne TSP TSL m 2 SL S ref C D r v C L
c 1
C
W 2
1 h b 1
C D C D ,0 h b K C h b 16 h b
2 2
h b 1
L (A4)
1 16 h b 2
T1e ,vTAS ,TSP TSP TSL m 1 c1 vTAS c2 vTAS
2
(A5)
m 0.7 SL c1 0 c2 0 c1 c2
The parameter c2 can often be neglected for the existing takeoff speed
range. The momentum drag, which is airspeed dependent and opposes thrust is
expressed with the linear term. The maximum takeoff (MTO) or maximum
continuous (MCT) thrust flat-ratings ratings are incorporated into thrust setting
parameter (TSP). Average thrust of one engine can be calculated using EAS:
1
v
c v c v2 c v c v2
T1e
v0 TSP T0 m 1 1 2 dv TSP T0 m 1 1 2
2 3
(A6)
A sudden and complete engine failure at engine failure speed VEF and the
complete loss of thrust on failed engine is assumed resulting in the average net
AEO and OEI accelerations for constant mass/weight:
a AEO
W
g
W
g
FAEO neT1e r L Da r W
(A7)
aOEI
W
g
W
FOEI ne 1T1e r L Da r W
g
All forces above are average during takeoff except that aircraft weight is
assumed constant. Average acceleration during no-wind takeoff is practically
equal to instantaneous acceleration evaluated at the speed equal to 70% of the
liftoff speed (Durbin and Perkins, 1962; Mair and Birdsall, 1992; Saarlas, 2007).
Normally, aerodynamic drag and tire resistance, while on the ground, would
increase somewhat during OEI condition compared to AEO case because of the
control inputs and the adverse elevator effect (AEE) during rotation (Daidzic,
2014b), but that minor short-duration effect is being omitted from analysis.
Assuming that coefficients A, B, and C are constant in the given sped-interval, the
time elapsed during portions (or entire) takeoff roll is:
v2
dv
t A Bv C v
v1
2
(A8)
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 50
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
v2
dx 1
2 C v2 B Z 2 C v1 B Z
v1
A BxCx 2
Z
ln
2 C v1 B Z 2 C v2 B Z
v
v2 v dv
2a
A Bv C v
0
2
(A9)
A B v 2 C v 22
v2 v2
x dx 1 B dx
v1
A BxCx 2
ln 2
2 C A B v1 C v1 2 C
A BxCx
v1
2
1 A B v 2 C v 22 B 2 C v 2 B Z 2 C v1 B Z
ln ln
2 C A B v1 C v12 2 C Z 2 C v1 B Z 2 C v 2 B Z
v v
r v dv v dv
1 1 v
r
v0 v0 a
(A10)
Appendix B
Let us assume a vector of functions with the vector of independent values that
needs to be zeroed. We are seeking vector of solutions xi that satisfies:
Fi
x j Ox 2
N
Fi x x Fi x x
j 1 j
(B2)
Fi
J ij (B3)
x j
J x Fx (B4)
x k 1 x k J 1 Fx (B5)
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 52
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Appendix C
2 f
H i , j |P (C2)
xi x j
n
2 f
tr H
i 1 xi2
(C3)
2 f 2 f
2
x 2 x y f f f 2 f 2 f
2 2 2
H 2 2 2 0 (C4)
f 2 f x y x y x y y x
y x y 2
f
|P 0 (C5)
xi
2 f
0 0 maximum
xi2
2 f 2 f
H 0 2 0 saddle point (C6)
xi x j
2
2 f
0 0 minimum
xi2
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 54
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129
Daidzic: Unbalanced fields takeoffs
Appendix D
Density altitude (DA) calculations for standard and nonstandard temperatures and
constant pressure altitudes (PA) are illustrated in Figure D1.
The lines of constant PA (dashed) are also lines of constant . The lines
of constant temperature ISA±∆T (solid) are lines of constant and the lines of
constant DA (horizontal) are the lines of constant .
PA 1.47213619 10 5 1 0.1902632 ft (D1)
DA 1.47213619 10 5 1 0.2349692 ft (D2)
http://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol3/iss3/3 56
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1129